In Odesa, the court closed the case of drunk driving an electric scooter due to lack of evidence
The Malynov District Court of Odesa, in a ruling dated December 3, 2026, in case No. 521/15824/24, closed the proceedings against a man whom the patrol police accused of driving an electric scooter while intoxicated.
As established by the court, according to the Patrol Police Department in the Odesa region, the incident occurred in September 2024 around 23:55 on Liustdorfska Road in Odesa. The man was accused of allegedly driving an E-WINGS electric scooter while intoxicated.
A medical examination conducted at a healthcare facility showed 0.70 ‰ blood alcohol content.
At the same time, during the case review, the court noted that the video recordings from the patrol officers' body cameras did not contain evidence of driving the vehicle while intoxicated. The video showed the man standing near the electric scooter, which was parked with its light on, but the moment of movement was not documented. The man also stated in the protocol that he did not move on it.
The court pointed out that the fact of the medical examination for intoxication at the medical facility was recorded on video, but the circumstances of driving the vehicle while the man was intoxicated were not.
In particular, based on the video files submitted to the case materials, it appears that the police officers in a service vehicle approached the man, who was standing near the scooter with the light on. The movement of the vehicle under the driver's control was not recorded by the body cameras.
As the court noted, according to Article 280 of the Code of Administrative Offenses, the authority (official) reviewing an administrative offense case is obliged to clarify: whether an administrative offense was committed, whether the person is guilty of committing it, whether they are subject to administrative liability, whether there are mitigating or aggravating circumstances, whether property damage was caused, whether there are grounds for transferring the materials on the administrative offense to a public organization, labor collective, and also to clarify other circumstances relevant for the correct resolution of the case.
Therefore, considering the absence of proper evidence in the case materials confirming the fact that the man was driving the electric scooter (video recordings from the service vehicle's dashcam, witness statements, etc.), the court concludes that the Patrol Police Department failed to prove the fact of the man committing the administrative offense under Part 1 of Article 130 of the Code of Administrative Offenses.
Subscribe to our Telegram channel t.me/sudua and to Google News SUD.UA, as well as to our VIBER and WhatsApp, our page on Facebook and on Instagram to stay informed about the most important events.
